"In 1992, to challenge Stanford's rules on political incorrectness, Rabois stood outside the dorm room of an instructor and made remarks criticized by many as homophobic."
(Alternatively, it's not too uncommon for people to be homophobic either because they don't understand their sexuality, or because they understand it but want to hide it from other people.)
That is exactly what I thought after reading the articles on this, his response, and the Standford news article.
edit: obviously, this is only what Keith claims on his part. I'm only saying, these are the assertions that he's adding to the record
1. Keith and the accuser were in a consensual relationship before the accuser came to work at Square.
2. Keith encouraged his accuser to join the company but asserts that he did not give his accuser any favors or preferential treatment, nor did his accuser ever report directly to him
3. Keith admits that continuing the relationship after his accuser started working at Square was poor judgment.
4. The accuser is claiming that some of the acts in the relationship were not consensual, and Keith unequivocally denies doing the "horrendous things I am told I may be accused of".
5. Keith insinuates that his accuser tried to blackmail him on the order of millions of dollars.
Edited to add: There's also the altogether not-minor point that even a consensual relationship preceding and concurrent with Square employment wouldn't mean sexual harassment was impossible. Imagine the accuser, say, breaking up with Keith and getting stalked or threatened by him as a result.
In the end, it'll be a matter of perspective...it's possible that the accuser is out to blackmail him. It's also possible that Rabois misjudged his role in the relationship, and that the accuser felt pressure to accomodate him because Rabois, indirectly or not, was his boss.
Unless Keith is colossally stupid, he didn't just make up a bunch of stuff when his lawyer told him it's time to be quiet. People have been known to be that stupid in that past , so like someone else said it's good we have a court system to deal with the serious allegations being made by each side.
Even in the criminal justice system, the goal of the criminal justice system has never been to find truth, only produce justice or deterrence.
The last part sounds a bit like a tautology, but essentially, most criminal justice systems were created with the knowledge they can't figure out what really happened in most cases (take murder, where at least one person who knows what happened is dead, and another stands accused), so the goal is usually not to find the truth. Justice is easy, truth is hard.
There are also plenty of cases where truth is irrelevant to the aim of deterrence. It doesn't matter if you catch everyone who is speeding, or even that everyone you ticket was speeding, your goal is usually to get a high enough rate of catching actual speeders to deter the conduct.
Edit: I am referring to the canonical definition of justice, not the bureaucratic one.
"3. Keith admits that continuing the relationship after his accuser started working at Square was poor judgment."
I would think that would make #2 poor judgment, too (encouraging someone to do something so that you have an excuse to break up? Poor judgment). Actually, I would think #2 already was poor judgment given #1.
We've seen a lot of article on HN about how difficult it is for women to break into the tech industry. If legal concerns make men leerier of referring girlfriends or spouses to their own companies, that will make it harder still for women to get in the door.
(Notice that this is an observation, not a policy argument.)
"With increasing frequency, we hung out, drank wine, and I helped prepare him for interviews with tech startups"
...so this case doesn't seem to involve women, not directly. Your observation still stands, though.
There will come times of interest conflict, and it will hurt either your business or your relations. If someone works with his girlfriend (or people hook up with someone from workplace) and get a painful breakup, it tends to poison the working environment for the whole team. If there are relatives on-board, then people will be angry with a feeling of nepotism no matter if it's there or not. It just doesn't work out.
So - don't encourage your GF/BF, spouse, mom or nephew to join your company, spread out. I know a couple of married couples that first hooked up in the workplace - but it all started to be nonproblematic only after one of them quit the company.